The United States as the Hegemon within the World Economy Essay Example for Free

The join States as the Hegemon within the World Economy Essay accounting entryBeyond the number of Great Powers that have played a central role in the world-wide system since 1815, there is a body of historical theory which suggests that the working of the system has been critically drug-addicted upon the role played by one central actor- the hegemon- that is responsible for the international cabaret, both political and economic. such a conception embodies both a theory of continuity, in as much as hegemons atomic number 18 important to the system in different historical settings, but also a theory of smorgasbord since the rise and fall of hegemonies is a dynamic process. The hegemon plays the leading role in yielding an institutional environment which is genial to its own interests (free trade, informal empire) but also accepts costs in being the mainstay of the system(providing financial services, a source of capital, and a pattern of phalanx support).Hegemonic Stabil ity and AdaptationRobert Keohane has refined and critiqued the argument that international order requires a hegemon, admits that a leadership role requires political will as well as material resources. This is obvious but important point has remained underdeveloped. From realistic perspective, foreign- policy adaptation is induced by changes in a states international power position. Its pace and scope depends on how the changes are interpreted, the relationship between assessment of options is thus key analytic issue.Turning First to constraints, in some unblemished real politic national leaders face inconsequential domestic impediments the relevant environment is generally or exclusively external. For example, rising states typically stretched declining hegemony thin by challenging their geopolitical primacy. This affected Britain dramatically at the turn of the twentieth century. As Japan and the United States built modern navies, Britain lost its ball-shaped command of the se as. Although the Admiralty could have potentialened its pacific and American squadrons, the naval race with Germany took priority Britain depleted its non- European fleets to concentrate on the East Atlantic.Hegemonic governments resist adaptation. But this inertia is even more pronounced than for similar states internal interests and fixed institutional routines are not the only reasons. Governmental and many private elites typically view international relations and their role in them in ways that promote expansion rather than adjustment to constraints.Hegemonic Security System in United StatesSecurity hegemons reap advantages by organizing subordinate states. recent scholarship has focused on economic leadership, while recognizing that a successful economic hagemon requires sufficient military power to protect its partners from threats to their autonomy. Those security arrangements are the context in which adaptation became a U.S. policy issue. some(prenominal) Cold War blocs have been hegemonic security systems, even if, in retrospect, the Soviet totality lacked the economic strength to be a long- term system leader. For much of the post war period, the ordering principle of individually was boundary management- preserving (if not expanding) the original coalition. There have been obvious differences between the two coalitions, as well as between them and traditional territorial imperiums, but key similarities as well. Security hegemonies, uniform economic ones, are sub systemic the international systems has not been unipolar since the Roman Empire, if then, and attempts to make it so have invariably been self-defeating. For forty years, NATO has been the core of the American system.Hegemonic security systems likewise provide mutual benefits. ally deny certain kinds of access to a hegemons rivals and perhaps provide it greater global reach. Soviet leaders have generously supplied arms to regional clients to promote their geopolitical arms vise-a visa the United States.Hegemonic states differ from others in two ways. One is the scope and impact of their structural power. Often a ascendant state can change the rules rather than adapt its policies to them. Powerful states have more adaptive escaped than others. Some times this is simply a function of aggregate capabilities. Even though the Soviet Union equaled and perhaps overtook the United states military during 1970s, American leaders still had the wherewithal to deter most threats, and thus to dispose the attentive public that most commitments assumed during the 1940s and 1950s could be maintained. Structural power or relatively low vulnerability also means that hegemons can often force others to adjust to selfish policies.Consistency as well as continuity is important in hegemonial relationships, and only the hegemon can agree them. Overall, consistency benefits most members of such coalitions. For smaller states, uniform rules and practices reduce uncertainty and risk a version. This allowed most industrialize and many developing countries to focus on growth rather than comparative power position during the bill of Bretton Woods.Decline of Hegemony in United StatesAn important link between regime and hegemony theories is the theory of hegemonic stability maiden advanced by Charles Kindleberger (Keohane 1984 Gilpin 1987) in his analysis of the global economic problems following the crisis of 1929. In this perspective, particularly pop in the United States, single hagemons fulfill their leadership role better than groups of states. Thus, during the nineteenth century, Great Britain had a positive function as economic hegemon. Though the United States accepted this useful role afterwards World War II, according to this theory, many current problems of the world economy can be traced to its fond(p) loss of leadership capacity. In this perspective, hegemony is not identical to oppressive dominance.In the perception of hegemonic stability theory, h egemons establish international regimes, i.e., orders as a public utility, which dissolve with the decline of hegemony. The neorealist position in the formulation of keohane has circumscribed this thesis. Although the construction of central regimes depends upon a hegemon, once they have become institutionalized they may well get in hegemonic decline.In fact, despite the decline of U.S. hegemony, important international regimes have not come apart completely, although they experienced profound crises. An example of an international regime that has come under pressure during hegemonic decline without fully disintegrating is the usual Agreement on taraffis and Trade (GATT), which suffered setbacks during the 1970s and 1980s within its framework ever more shrewd economic tensions are played out between North America, Western Europe, and Japan.ReferenceClark, lan. (1989). The Hierarchy of States clear and Resisitence in the International Order Cambridge University Press. pg106Dr. B ornschier, Volker, Bosch. (1996). Western Society in Transition Transection publishes. London. pg134Lepgold, Joseph. (1990). The declining Hegemon The United States and European Defense, 1960-1990. Greewood produce group. pg34Mastanduno Micheal, Lake A. David, Ikenberry John G. (1988) The State and American Foreign Economic policy Cornell University press pg 41, 48